campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Anti-copyright
Note: I'm not personally anti-copyright, I've adapted this page from the wikipedia because it belongs here rather than there, and because it offers an alternative viewpoint. Klafubra 11:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) an alternative An idea that's been shuffling in my head for a few months now: How about making collective ownership of copyright illegal? That is, copyright can only be owned by individuals, not corporations. If several people collaborate to create something, the ownership remains with each of those individuals even if some of them move on. Copyright holders could license use-rights to corporations or other groups for a limited amount of time, something like 5 to 20 years (the ramifications would have to be looked at in order to arrive at a sensible length of time) in order to prevent "99-year leases" which are almost as bad as selling the copyright. There are obviously some serious problems with this. For one, it could tend to discourage collaborative creativity, which would be bad. I do see all kinds of benefits, however, mainly in that individuals with creative ability would have to be greatly more respected. Imagine, say, that if the designer of the Coca-Cola logo decided s/he wasn't being fairly compensated, s/he could prevent the Coca Cola company from using it. The company would then have to find someone else to design a new logo... whom they would have to treat better than they treated the first person, if they didn't want to risk losing that logo too. This would probably be an extreme pendulum-swing -- graphic artists and copywriters suddenly becoming "rock stars" within their industries -- but I'd sooner see those types of people achieving "star status" than, say, basketball players... Perhaps someone can come up with a more moderate scenario, somewhere in between this idea and the present situation (where real "rock stars" like John Fogerty get sued for copying their own music because they don't own the copyrights). --Woozalia 23:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC) I don't think that copyright laws protect corporations more than individuals... When I was about 16 I was totally into the anti-copyright movement, probably because it was just part of my whole intellectual rebellion thing. I have since rethought the idea. This article mentions that the absence of copyright laws hasn't harmed the fashion world... but take a look at the fashion industry (high fashion, that is) - if anyone can use any idea, the one who wins financially is usually the one who had the most money in the first place, so they can simply advertise better. I definitely don't think that you should be able to sell someone else's work without buying the rights to it... if this is possible, anything an unknown makes can be ripped by a big corporation - they will make all the bucks on it, and the unknown will get nothing for it. The peer-to-peer networks are slightly different, IMO. It isn't nearly as bad if you aren't selling. Sure, the creator might lose some sales, because people can get it for free... but it will give exposure, and create a greater demand for any new things that the creator might come out with. It isn't a GOOD situation for the creator, because people can't live on "prestige," as this article seems to suggest, but at least you aren't being screwed over while someone else is making money off of your stuff. I think that this shouldn't be written into law, but it will have to be ignored, unless someone is profiting off of it. There are SOME things that you definitely shouldn't be able to copyright - DNA, for example. It really bothers me that people are copyrighting DNA with the hope that someone will want to use it in gene therapy, etc, and they will make big bucks off of it. This is very unprincipled, IMO. It isn't even as if they are copyrighting their OWN DNA, which I could understand more (hey, I could sell clones of myself - it could happen!). As an artist and a writer, I see nothing in the anti-copyright movement for me. I don't want to use other's ideas - I have good enough good ideas on my own, thank you very much. I think that copyright laws encourage creative types, because they have a chance of getting something out of their work - other than this "prestige" thing. Hairy Legs 12:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)